"Do I look like an idiot to you?" With those words the owner of Avalon production, Boban Miloševski, answered a reporter's question at a press conference about David Guetta's concert in Skopje.

The question was simple and entirely within the bounds of journalistic work: why has the value of the contract still not been made public, and is there a clause preventing the sum from being disclosed. It was asked by Miroslava Simonovska, a journalist at Sloboden Pečat. After his answer, Miloševski said the meeting with the media was devoted to the organisation and security of the concert, called the question a provocation, and directed the journalist to the government for financial answers.

The key detail that changes the whole scene

The concert is part of the programme marking 35 years of independence. The organisation is supported with public funds.

Which means the question about the sum is not a journalist's curiosity, nor an attack on a private company. It is a question about taxpayers' money, asked at a public press conference by a reporter whose job is precisely to ask it. "Do I look like an idiot to you" as an answer to a question about public money is not a rude tone - it is a refusal to answer, dressed up as an insult.

The Association of Journalists of Macedonia responded with an official letter to Avalon Production, following a complaint by the journalist. The association judged that "the inappropriate tone, the personal remarks and the dismissive attitude towards journalists are not part of the professional communication that should exist between event organisers and the media."

The association reminded that journalists have the right to ask questions freely within their work, including questions that may be uncomfortable for their interlocutors, and announced it would continue to protect the dignity and professional rights of journalists.

Pointing at the government is an answer that is not an answer

Miloševski is formally right that budget decisions are made by the government. But a contract has two sides, and the second side is standing at a microphone at its own press conference. A confidentiality clause in a contract financed with public money is itself news - and that question could have been answered with a "yes" or a "no" without a single denar being disclosed.

What remains open is what that contract says and why the sum is still unknown. The organiser made it clear he did not like the question. About the size of the sum, he said nothing.